`It seems that .compressTipLabel's running times are proportional to N`

`(number of trees) and to log(n) (n: nb of tips).`

R> tr <- rmtree(1e4, 1e4) # takes ~5 minutes R> system.time(a <- .compressTipLabel(tr)) utilisateur système écoulé 20.904 0.376 21.275

## Advertising

R> print(object.size(tr), unit = "Gb") 8.2 Gb R> print(object.size(a), unit = "Gb") 3 Gb If I divide N by 10, it takes 10 times less time: R> tr <- rmtree(1e3, 1e4) R> system.time(a <- .compressTipLabel(tr)) utilisateur système écoulé 2.088 0.000 2.088

`To be compared with my previous message with N=10000 and n=1000 which`

`took 20 times less time (~1.2 sec).`

`I guess reading the tree file (either in Newick or in NEXUS) will be`

`much longer than any of these.`

Best, Emmanuel Le 14/12/2016 à 22:44, Yan Wong a écrit :

On 14 Dec 2016, at 20:57, Emmanuel Paradis <emmanuel.para...@ird.fr> wrote:What is the size of your problem?Erm, quite large. I am looking at tree comparison metrics for roughly 10,000 trees with perhaps 10,000 tips on each, replicated several times. The newick files themselves take up gigabyes uncompressed. For this sized problem I’m likely to implement my own comparison metrics, but I want to trial this out with a tested library before rolling my own.Do you use a recent version of ape? This function was improved one or two years ago.Yes, 4.0. But I’m happy for the moment to just leave this stuff running for days on a server, so it was just a quick suggestion really. Thanks for the quick reply Yan

_______________________________________________ R-sig-phylo mailing list - R-sig-phylo@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/r-sig-phylo@r-project.org/